On 07/01/2010 03:38 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:38:03 -0400
Tom Lane<tgl(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> I see that libtiff.fc13 and libpng.fc13 are now showing "critical path
> approved", for which I thank those who did the work.
Thanks. ;)
> I remain a bit
> unclear about a couple of things:
>
> 1. Bodhi is showing both packages as requested push-to-stable. Which
> *I* certainly didn't do, and considering they are only at +2 karma,
> this means that the threshold for auto-push is actually lower than it
> was before, not higher. WTF? Is the idea here to remove every last
> vestige of the maintainer's judgment from the process?
No. Please stop assuming everything in a negative light. ;)
This looks like a bug to me... if you didn't request stable, it
shouldn't go yet. I can talk to Luke about it, perhaps you could file a
bodhi bug on it?
There /was/ a bug with the initial release that left a small window of
time where updates would have been auto-promoted even if karma
automatism was enabled. This has since been resolved.
> 2. libtiff.fc12 and libpng.fc12 are still lonely with zero karma.
Is
> the restrictive policy in force for F-12 too? I'm even less willing
> to believe that we have enough testing manpower to cover both back
> branches right away.
Yes, it does appear to be there as well.
I am just ramping up my f12 test machine now... but yeah, it's not
clear that we intended this to go live for f12 too. ;(
It also wasn't clear that this was supposed to be for F13 only :(
Right now bodhi treats *all* critical path packages the same, across all
releases.
If we only want this policy to be in place for F13, then I'm sure I
could hack around it.
luke